[Leica] Lens Quality in the Digital Age

[don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)]

Martin,
No, you haven't missed the revolution, but maybe haven't been on the same
chat line.  If we are talking about a pure digital workflow, then the image
possibilites for acutance are vastly higher.  In the digital world, much
higher levels of sharpening are available, limitations would be size/pixel
count and just how much haloing you can stand.

In the film universe, grain keeps you from applying the same levels of
sharpening unless you use some pretty sophisticated techniques or programs.

As to absolute lens ability there are multiple thoughts but here are two.
First, there are a whole lot of Leica R lenses being used on Canon bodies
because the users see a difference.  Two, there are a whole lot of lenses by
a lot of manufacturers that are good enough that user error degrades the
image more than the lens defects.

To be equivical, content always matters more than absolute perfection in
image capture, but the overall quality level with today's equipment is much
better than some of the consumer camera items available not too long ago.
Cheap third pary lenses are a rarity now, the average Tamron, Sigma, and
Tokina offering are much better than the average Sakar or the mundane
Soligor of twenty years ago.  The average consumer has much better offerings
today at a good price point than ever before, and the nose in the air
connoseaur has just as much to be thankful for.  What would W. Eugene have
given for a 35 ASPH Summilux for his Nurse Midwife series?  Or any wildlife
photographer of thirty years ago for the 280 APO with APO tele-extenders?

Last to directly answer your question, the latest inkjets are able to
deliver in excess of 1400 dots of ink per inch which are invisible at any
reasonable viewing distance so the limiting factor is the original file sent
to the printer.  So, if you have perfect technique using a very crisp
negative in a glass carrier with a flat field APO enlarging lens then you
might end up with a sharper print, but in the day to day world of printing,
the inkjets will win the battle of numbers.

Don
don.dory@gmail.com


On 5/26/06, Martin Krieger <krieger@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong. What is most interesting in this emerging
> digital age is the general decline of interest in lens quality. Lots of
> interest in processing algorithms, in pixel counts, in noise in the sensor,
> but the lenses have been let off scot free. This may make sense for point
> and shoots (with exceptional cases such as the Digilux 2), but you would
> think there is more concern in the Nikon/Canon/etc digital world. They sell
> the models with not very good lenses, in effect reasonably good cars with
> thin rubber tires. You can buy better lenses, but as far as I can tell,
> there have been no real advances in lens quality. Leica still makes perhaps
> the best lenses, surely some of the best. Canon may make a few. But the 
> main
> point here is that lens quality is no longer front and center.
>
> Moreover, no inkjet system (and I suspect no lightjet system, about this I
> am unsure) has the resolution of silver-gelatin or even color printing
> paper. You look with a 20x magnifier and you see the dots. Nothing wrong
> with this, except if you are curious about some detail twenty years from 
> now
> and have only the print.
>
> Have I missed the revolution?
>
> MK
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>